get_equity_investment_transfer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it 'retrieves' information, implying read-only but not explicitly. There is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is structured. However, the first line repeats the tool name unnecessarily, slightly reducing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no description of return values, the agent lacks information on what data is returned or how to interpret results. For a tool with 3 parameters and many siblings, this is insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds basic semantics for parameters beyond the schema (e.g., corp_code is a DART corporate code, dates are in YYYYMMDD format). However, it does not specify what the dates represent (e.g., transfer decision date, filing date), leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves key information on transfer decisions of equity and investment certificates from major matters reports, using a specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_equity_investment_acquisition (acquisition) and get_equity_securities_transfer (securities transfer).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of similar sibling tools, explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.